In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns
itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a
Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.


Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.



Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:07:37 PM UTC-7, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
automaker... manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
the switch than any of the other GMs.

As I heard it, a fix was implemented, but the documentation of the fix
was never filed: a mix of good and bad parts were in stock, with no
stock-number difference. So, your switch MIGHT be just fine.

Ford investigated the switch thoroughly by taking an example from the
(new, good-design) stock, and cleared it. That's why it took so long;
a used-part example in bad-design had to be located and identified.

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:07:37 PM UTC-7, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
automaker... manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
the switch than any of the other GMs.

As I heard it, a fix was implemented, but the documentation of the fix
was never filed: a mix of good and bad parts were in stock, with no
stock-number difference. So, your switch MIGHT be just fine.

GM investigated the switch problem initially by taking an example from the
(new, good-design) stock, and cleared it. That's why the problem lingered;
a used-part example of bad-design type had to be located and identified.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

Lew

In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

--

-Mike-

In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.

Lew

Yes, Cigar, Lew. The trouble is you wouldn't know a cigar if it beat
you over the head with a titanium cluebat.

Do you _try_ to annoy people with this kind of pretend-ignorance?

In article ,
says...

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on swimming
with the crocodiles.

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 15:42:56 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

We just received the recall notice on our Mustang. It's already had
its airbags replaced (big oops!) but they said that they were most
likely replaced with the same, faulty, parts. It'll be six months
before they get the parts.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 17:53:29 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
split-phase
motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

A capacitor-start motor most certainly is a split-phase motor but the
reverse is not necessarily true. That's exactly what the capacitor is
for (to split the phases). The phase split can be done with resistance
or capacitance.

Nice try but no cigar.

You're wrong.

krw wrote:


We just received the recall notice on our Mustang. It's already had
its airbags replaced (big oops!) but they said that they were most
likely replaced with the same, faulty, parts. It'll be six months
before they get the parts.

Amazing! But - with all of the airbags being recalled by almost every
manufacturer right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the wait isn't a lot
longer than that.

--

-Mike-

Lew Hodgett wrote:


Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
swimming
with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

Lew

In article om,
says...

Lew Hodgett wrote:


Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
swimming
with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

Yep, I figured you were making some inane quibble over nomenclature. If
you fancy yourself an engineer, don't quit your day job.

On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.


Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.



Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?


I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
later overwhelms the former.
You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
insurance company paying for the repair.

On 8/2/2015 4:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns
itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a
Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.


HUH, but you were the one whining about the air bags not working if the
ignition switch turns off. Air bag problems are not unique to an
ignition switch problem.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.


Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.



Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?


I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
later overwhelms the former.
You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
insurance company paying for the repair.

What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of ****
it's TOO DAMNED MANY.

You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
fixing the design.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 4:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns
itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a
Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.


HUH, but you were the one whining about the air bags not working if the
ignition switch turns off. Air bag problems are not unique to an
ignition switch problem.

No, but they are part of the reason that it's a problem.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 17:59:39 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns
itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a
Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.

So the conversation drifts a bit and you get your panties all in a
bunch?

On 8/3/2015 5:46 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 4:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 12:35:28 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

My Ranger is one of the vehicles affected, it is the only the
passenger side. There is a switch to turn it off and I have. Now mind
that I have gotten a letter from Ford advising me of the recall
(waiting for the parts to be available) but make no mention that you
should turn it off. No doubt more lawyer fodder for those injured by
shrapnel.

Huh? We're talking about the craptastic GM ignition switch that turns
itself off if you have too many keys on your keychain. I don't think a
Ford Ranger has a GM ignition switch.


HUH, but you were the one whining about the air bags not working if the
ignition switch turns off. Air bag problems are not unique to an
ignition switch problem.

No, but they are part of the reason that it's a problem.


Or could be a problem. This does not affect every switch, this is a
precautionary safety recall to replace the switch whether it is
defective or not.

On 8/3/2015 5:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.


Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.



Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?


I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
later overwhelms the former.
You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
insurance company paying for the repair.

What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of ****
it's TOO DAMNED MANY.

You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
fixing the design.

Then I advise you to stop driving any vehicle from this point on and
stay in doors. There is hardly a vehicle out there that does not have
the potential to have an accident for one reason or another.

Before you know it there will be recalls on crash avoidance systems,
lane change systems, and back up cameras because the drivers ignored
the warnings.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/3/2015 5:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.


Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.



Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

Well **** happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?


I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
later overwhelms the former.
You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
insurance company paying for the repair.

What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of ****
it's TOO DAMNED MANY.

You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
fixing the design.

Then I advise you to stop driving any vehicle from this point on and
stay in doors. There is hardly a vehicle out there that does not have
the potential to have an accident for one reason or another.

Before you know it there will be recalls on crash avoidance systems,
lane change systems, and back up cameras because the drivers ignored
the warnings.

Please, PLEASE buy a Pinto and remove the brake lights.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:05:50 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


Lew Hodgett wrote:


Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
swimming
with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

Wrong. A capacitor-start motor is just a special case of a
split-phase motor. There are a few ways to split the phase but a
different method doesn't mean that the phase isn't split.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:05:50 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


Lew Hodgett wrote:


Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
swimming
with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

Wrong. A capacitor-start motor is just a special case of a
split-phase motor. There are a few ways to split the phase but a
different method doesn't mean that the phase isn't split.

Don't waste your time--if the catalog doesn't say "capacitor-start
split-phase" he's not gonna accept it.

In article om, sails.man1
@verizon.net says...

Lew Hodgett wrote:


Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_mot...it-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
swimming
with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

phorbin wrote in
:

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
the subject).

All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
different phases.

John

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

phorbin wrote in
:

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
the subject).

All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
different phases.

Actually, the shaded pole motor is also a split phase motor. The
shading coil is the other phase. ;-)

krw wrote in news:lsmhsah7vnp9eh2vp4utnonsv59pb7ai3m@
4ax.com:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

phorbin wrote in
:

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
the subject).

All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
different phases.

Actually, the shaded pole motor is also a split phase motor. The
shading coil is the other phase. ;-)

Well, in a sense that's correct, altho by extension that
definition would mean all single phase motors are split-phase,
since you have to have something offset from line phase or
they'll never start rotating. It's not the most useful
definition :-)

In engineering practice, tho, split-phase means split off
from the line, as opposed to being induced (as is the case
for the shaded pole motor).

John

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:23:55 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

krw wrote in news:lsmhsah7vnp9eh2vp4utnonsv59pb7ai3m@
4ax.com:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

phorbin wrote in
:

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
the subject).

All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
different phases.

Actually, the shaded pole motor is also a split phase motor. The
shading coil is the other phase. ;-)

Well, in a sense that's correct, altho by extension that
definition would mean all single phase motors are split-phase,
since you have to have something offset from line phase or
they'll never start rotating. It's not the most useful
definition :-)

Yes, you need some offset but it could be a multi-phase (or
DC/universal) motor rather than splitting the one phase. It might be
true that all single-phase induction motors are split-phase. Can't
think of a counterexample right now.

In engineering practice, tho, split-phase means split off
from the line, as opposed to being induced (as is the case
for the shaded pole motor).

That's a distinction that's not universal.

krw wrote in news:c8lisa188kp9ht1g8mpsd2au945dh7oodc@
4ax.com:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:23:55 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

In engineering practice, tho, split-phase means split off
from the line, as opposed to being induced (as is the case
for the shaded pole motor).

That's a distinction that's not universal.

Probably not, altho in my experience it's always been so.

John